swu_suggest_cards

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It honestly describes the recommendation behavior and notes that only_owned=True restricts to the loaded collection, but it does not disclose prerequisites like whether a loaded collection is required or how it handles a missing decklist. Adequate but not thorough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two terse sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and the key only_owned flag in a second clause. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It gives the core purpose and one flag, but fails to explain several meaningful inputs; the presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and only two of eight parameters (goal and only_owned) are mentioned in the description. Parameters like decklist, format_name, meta_context, and target_matchups are left to bare names and defaults, forcing the agent to guess their exact meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states a specific verb+resource+outcome: 'Suggest cards to improve a Star Wars Unlimited deck toward a stated goal.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_cards (lookup) and generate_deck (full deck creation).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a clear use context (deck improvement) and explains the only_owned filter, but never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as swu_search_cards or swu_generate_deck. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.